I answered 'Yes' to all of them. :\ However, very difficult questions nonetheless. I had the most trouble answering the first and fourth one.

Keran

1. No. - I could never hurt an innocent baby, no matter how drastic the situation would be...
2. No. - Even if the person was dying I wouldn't throw him away, I'd find some other way to survive, like jump out of the boat and swim near it and then switch with someone else, something like that...
3. Yes. - This one seemed least... brutal, even though some might say that by not doing anything the 5 people that die won't be dead from Your fault, although I think I could switch the track, unless the person to be killed would be someone I knew.
4. No. - I wouldn't push the guy, because if I did, I would have killed him by my own will and I could not kill someone like that. And having other people die, because I couldn't do anything (or didn't wanted to because it seemed also wrong) is lesser evil...
5. No. - Same as above, even though I didn't see him, I wouldn't save the other 5 people, because it would still be more blood on my hands if i willingly killed one guy...

Those questions were really hard, took me some time to decide what to anwser, but I tried to imagine myself in these situations and that's what I would have probably have done.

UtanCecilie

I had problems with chosing to save one person or five. I don't really know why, maybe I simply feel that that one person haven't done anything to warrant his death instead of five other people that he doesn't know.

Insanity

You have to keep in mind that taking a quiz and imagining it is very different than actually being in the situation (like in the first one where your life is at risk... it's very difficult to think rationally during these times.).

Philou

Call me a monster if you will, but the easiest one to me was the first. Killing the baby. It's sad and all, you know, but people's lift are at stake, and he's not even understanding what's going on. Once dead, he doesn't suffer, and his sacrifice saves lives. It becomes harder with the injured person, who's conscious of what's going on...

The trolley thing seems weird to me; what kind of morons hang out "unsuspectingly" on tracks..?!

truespeed

This reminds me of that film based on a true story whereby 2 climbers slipped on a mountain,and the climber above was holding onto his friend dangling on a rope,he held on to him for a long time,but with no help forthcoming and he himself weakening,and the weight of his friend pulling him down so that they would both fall to their deaths.

His dilemma was,cut the rope,causing almost certain death to his friend,or hold on until he could hold on no more and they both go down together.

What he did was cut the rope,his friend fell,but remarkably he lived,not only did he live,he was able to get help for his friend still stuck on the mountain. So the man who cut his friends rope sending him to almost certain death was saved by that same man as he lay freezing on the mountain side awaiting almost certain death.

Liu

Philou wrote:

Call me a monster if you will, but the easiest one to me was the first. Killing the baby. It's sad and all, you know, but people's lift are at stake, and he's not even understanding what's going on. Once dead, he doesn't suffer, and his sacrifice saves lives. It becomes harder with the injured person, who's conscious of what's going on...

The trolley thing seems weird to me; what kind of morons hang out "unsuspectingly" on tracks..?!

They're simply hypothetical scenarios.

nilsmo

Keran wrote:

1. No. - I could never hurt an innocent baby, no matter how drastic the situation would be...

The soldiers are gonna kill the baby more brutally though.

The problem with these scenarios is that in real life you would probably not actually know whether sacrificing lives will save other people's lives. There could be an uncertainty factor that may cause you to rationally not do some of these actions.

gerly20

[quote=gerly20"] Reading the first scenerio about the baby made me think about what some of the slaves went through while trying to escape captivity when some run- away- slave had a baby. It is a drastic thing to think about or say, but I would probably have to kill the baby to save the other people if I could not quite the baby.

minty

My answers:

1) Yes - it is one compared to how many, on top of the fact that the baby will die if they soldiers here it crying anyway. It would still haunt my dreams until the day I died, but numerous other lifes were still saved.

2) Yes - because he is sure to die anyway. However, since no one on the raft is apparently a doctor, I am still debating whether to throw myself over or him, since if he had the possibility to live, wouldn't self-sacrifice be better?

3) Yes - I would pull the switch since both parties are on the track and none are paying attention, one person is better than 5.

4) No - I could not push a person off the bridge to save the five that are not paying attention. However, I would be willing to sacrifice myself to save them

5) No - Same reason above, and again I would sacrifice myself. Seriously, why would I want to kill this man who I have never met and may be on the brink of finding a cure for cancer for all I know, instead of myself?

My answers and my opinions!!

-minty

Thumpercats

truespeed wrote:

This reminds me of that film based on a true story whereby 2 climbers slipped on a mountain,and the climber above was holding onto his friend dangling on a rope,he held on to him for a long time,but with no help forthcoming and he himself weakening,and the weight of his friend pulling him down so that they would both fall to their deaths.

His dilemma was,cut the rope,causing almost certain death to his friend,or hold on until he could hold on no more and they both go down together.

What he did was cut the rope,his friend fell,but remarkably he lived,not only did he live,he was able to get help for his friend still stuck on the mountain. So the man who cut his friends rope sending him to almost certain death was saved by that same man as he lay freezing on the mountain side awaiting almost certain death.

I agree with him, the baby does not know what is going on, sacrifice him first to save others.

Kitten Kong

I love when morality is defined by individual situations like this, I'm so tired of my morality being broght into question based on my ideological beliefs. What does one thing really have to do with the other anyway? In this day and age in a rich country like Australia (my home) there is a basic set of morality that everyone understands (no murder, no robbery.. etc) and although some ppl break these they are at least aware of the moral repurcussions. So ignoring all else and just concentrating on these main moral standards that everyone seems to hold it just goes to show that we aren't all completely different. YAY!